Asian American Action Fund
cordially invites you to
an evening with Rep. Mark Takai
with delicious food and delightful wine pairings

AAA-Fund kicks off 2015 with an intimate dinner with Rep. Mark Takai on Wednesday, March 25th at 6:30p in downtown DC.
Rep. Mark Takai is a 2014 AAA-Fund Endorsee & Honorary Board member & represents Hawaii’s 1st Congressional district. Mark previously represented Hawaii’s 33rd House District in the State legislature 1994-2014 & currently serves as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Hawaii Army National Guard.

Donations will go to the AAA-Fund to support its continuing efforts to elect Asian American Democrats and politically activate the Asian American community. The AAA-Fund is a progressive political organization dedicated to empowering Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders across the United States.

The AAA-Fund accepts contributions only from individuals using their own personal funds of up to $5000 per calendar year and contributions will be used for federal elections. Under federal law, the AAA-Fund cannot accept contributions from Federal government contractors (note that employeees of federal contractors are free to contribute personal funds), foreign nationals who are not permanent residents; or those making donations using the general treasury funds of corporations, labor organizations, or national banks. Federal law requires us to use our best efforts to collect and report the full name, mailing address, occuption and employer of any individual whose contributions exceed $200 in a calendar year. Paid for by the Asian American Action Fund (www.aaa-fund.org) and authorized by Representative Mark Takai.

A few observations (ok, maybe a bit obvious, but still an attempt to get beyond a Jim Carey in Ace Ventura II scream of “Yeeuuukkkkk”)

Running against something rather than for something wins but lacks staying power. For quite a few cycles, elections seem characterized (oversimplistically but with some validity) as not a mandate for one, but rather a repudiation of the other. This election smacks of that. Rs don’t seem to have won because of a strong message on a widely approved policy agenda (by and large they didn’t offer one) but by running against the perceived status quo. Ds have done the same. That certainly wins elections. But it doesn’t give staying power – especially since the winner of last round becomes, in the public mind, the status quo. In this context, all victories look temporary, and lasting change proves elusive. Still…

Running against something still beats running without any real message. In 2010 and 2014, Ds seemed not to stand for that much. They did not tout what accomplishments they had (possibly because their accomplishments don’t look that great when things overall remained unfixed). Instead they kind of cringed, didn’t really defend their work, didn’t really articulate why they were better alternatives, and hoped not to get slammed too much by the oncoming tide. There were reasons for this, but we saw how it worked out. In a lot of ways they’ve been seen as running not to lose (and when you play to not lose, too often, you do. Rather than offering a vision or a grand purpose, all they had was a “that guy is worse” narrative – one which they often didn’t even press very effectively (eg Braley). And when they did,

“Even if you don’t like me, the other guy is worse” can work but has limits. Kay Hagan did about the best with this strategy and nearly pulled it out in a less blue state than CO or IA. But it only takes you so far, especially against an angry electorate that may feel that, Groundhog-day style, anything different is good, and has as its default “throw da bums out.” The negative approach has been disfavored at least in part out of fears of depressing turnout, and though it may be the best option (given that elections are in truth a choice between candidates far more so than anything else), it hardly inspires. On top of that..

Ds can’t reliably count on Rs to scare away the center. For the last few cycles, Rs have shifted so far right as to frighten everyone not only conservative, but extremely conservative. That’s provided Ds a refuge of sorts, and an excuse not to really change their own side too much. Rs, however, saw this, and responded. With the arguable exception of Ernst (who won anyway given the tide, but by less and with a weaker opponent), the worst of teabaggery was harder to see. Whether newly reformed non-extremists like Gardner have moved to the center in truth (which would be a very good thing for a country that desperately needs a reasoned, compromising, more moderate while still right-side Republican option, but would also be a complication for Ds electorally) or whether their facial moderation was a smokescreen remains to be seen. But for election purposes, they succeeded in being seen as at least plausible/non-scary alternatives to the status quo. Which highlights the underlying problem that…

When things suck, voters don’t seem to much care why. Here, the R attacks on things not being good resonated at least in part because they’re true. Things aren’t good for most people. Wages are falling, employment is low, the list goes on. Of course, the Rs offer little that shows promise of actually making things better, and show every sign of making things worse, as they did the last time they held power. But voters don’t seem to look that deeply. The Rs’ comparative lack of ways to do better, much less ways that have not been tried and failed before, didn’t seem to matter that much – at least, not to those who voted. Which underscores that

Who shows up, wins – and Ds too often don’t. Turnout was down yet again. Maybe part of that is dispiritedness of the base due to scandals, lack of transformative change etc. Or maybe part is generally lower rates of participation -on average years. Regardless, Ds still haven’t found a way to crack this. That leaves Ds in a horrible place (although they did manage to do differently in 06). It also leaves decisions made by an increasingly small fraction of the electorate. (Of course that, compromises the force of any general themes directed at general voting public, including the ones here- but that’s a separate point). It’s hard to say democracy itself is failing when it’s voters’ own choices not to show up at all, and it’s hard to complain about something one has the power to fix but does not. Still, self-inflicted wound though it may be, the situation is a wound for the country, and one that results in decision-making that does not reflect the wills of most of the people. However,

Low turnouts also highlight the prospect for change. Given how depressed turnout seems to be, it would take a correspondingly small shift in voter mobilization to dramatically swing outcomes. That would require shifts in individual desires to make such a change, as well as increased feeling that change would even matter or that either candidate is worth supporting. Such things may be daunting tasks, especially in an overall climate of disappointment on all sides and dislike of the other side being a prime motivator. Shifts like that do remain possible if the underlying factors prompting apathy can be addressed, and should be considered among the many other elements going into what to do next.

Editorial Context: National Election Pool (NEP) is what AP, CNN and the major news services rely upon for exit polling data. It found AAPIs had a huge swing from 2012 and were the group that Republicans made the largest gains with, coming out 52D-48R (revised by them to 50D-49R.) This is slightly controversial as it doesn’t capture the Limited English Proficiency AAPIs in our population. I will also add that some of the debate around how pollsters got 2014 so wrong, some say is because pollsters pegged too closely to the US Census American Community Survey and therefore did not capture the midterm audience accurately (tends to be less diverse and older than voters in presidential years.) Also it should be noted that this in-language poll was taken pre-election.

Here are a few links about how and why the polls were so wrong. Also any errors/ ommisions in typing were mine as I was taking notes on the call. For pretty graphics look at the presentation. -Caroline

Q & A:
Immigration sounds like it’s less important as an election issue than for the Latino community. Not single most important issue. 2014 is not a big change for AAPIs.

High no opinion rate that shows up in most polls. Party ID high portion of AAPIs either ID as independent or say they don’t know how to answer that q. Also for 2016 a high undecided portion. Tend not to share vote choice and partisanship in phone surveys until close to closing days.

Immigration linked to pathway to citizenship, were there other options provided for immigration reform? Big change between 2008 and 2012 in terms of big increase in AAPI support for immigration reform with pathway for citizenship. in 2008 it was 1 in 3. 2012 increased to majority. 2014 still a majority.

Since this is partnership between Asian American Decisions and Latino Decisions, any additional info on Young Kim & Janet Nguyen, 2 AAPI Republicans who won over Latino Dems in Orange County & implications?
Oversamples CA TX VA representative of AAPIs throughout the state. Didn’t ask horserace questions but will look into more info.

If you are only tapping English-only AAPIs, then that’s only one slice. NEP weighting moved from 52-48 D then they moved it to 50-49. This survey is pegged to Census weights. Still waiting to see why NEP they changed the weight. NEP is low sample size and they haven’t designed a way of getting an accurate picture of how AAPIs voted.

Looking to work on a campaign and want to get paid for it? The Asian American Action Fund seeks two Mike Honda Campaign Fellows to work on targeted campaigns for AAA-Fund endorsed candidates. Fellows should be willing to relocate. Stipend of $2,000 per month plus supporter housing. Send resume and a cover letter to asianamericanactionfund@gmail.com. Please specify which position you ‘d like to be considered for.

Field Organizers

AAA-Fund is looking for a fellows to help implement voter contact plans for targeted races in several states, build relationships with activists and community groups on the ground, and work to turn out the vote for the campaign.

Qualifications.
– Candidates must be willing to work long and/or odd hours through the campaign.
– Candidates must be able to speak and work with diverse communities and leaders.
– Candidates must have strong interpersonal skills and be a team player.
– Candidates with past experience on an electoral or issue advocacy a plus.
– Bilingual candidates preferred, but not required. (Mandarin, Vietnamese, Tagalog, Cantonese, and/or Spanish)
– Candidates must have reliable transportation and their own laptops.

Responsibilities
– Implementing an aggressive voter contact program
– Recruiting, managing, and training volunteers
– Planning events and house parties throughout the district
– Building relationships with political stakeholders, activists, and neighborhood leaders
– Collecting and managing data from the field efforts
– Report to the field director

Legal Protection Fellow

AAA-Fund is looking for a qualified fellow to manage the voter protection efforts for a highly targeted Democratic Congressional campaign in California. Most important qualities:

1) Being able to recruit/train/deploy/lead a team of election protection volunteers
2) Manage relationships outside of the campaign, particularly at the County Registrars office
3) An entrepreneurial and strategic thinker who can anticipate where voter challenges are likely to crop up.

Fellows will be working full-time on a Congressional campaign; therefore, he or she should also be comfortable long hours, be a skilled multi-tasker, team player, dedicated to the cause, and be flexible and willing to help the campaign wherever help is needed!

A J.D. is strongly preferred, but not required. The candidate should be prepared to work with lawyers/law students as well as County election officials.

Political Speednetworking Event: Midterm Elections: Where and How Do I Help the Democratic Cause?

Have you ever wondered what it’s like to work on a political campaign, or how to become a fundraiser, campaign manager or press secretary? Do you want to know how working on a campaign can further enhance your job prospects once Election Day is over?

AND most importantly, ARE YOU READY to help Democrats win back the House and keep the Senate?

Bring your resumes, be part of the 2014 election cycle resume bank AND JOIN the Asian American Action Fund and other leading progressive groups for a very special professional speednetworking event! We know for Democrats to succeed, we need to have both candidates and campaign staff that reflect the diversity of America. Learn how you can get involved in this critical 2014 political cycle and come hear first-hand candid advice from distinguished political veterans who have been on the campaign trail and in Washington!

KEYNOTE SPEAKER:

Raghu Devaguptapu, Principal with Adelstein Liston, first Asian American to be named Political Director of a national party committee, first at the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee and then at the Democratic Governor’s Association

Some is image, some is reality, some is tough times – but neither will crack that on their current path.

The GOP knows it has an image problem. It regularly polls below anything this side of toenail fungus. So the party elders have spent a lot of energy considering how to fix their messaging. The real problem, though, doesn’t seem to lie as much with the messaging as the message. The GOP in practice is for all intents and purposes the party of the one percent (or the point one percent). Some of its principles are positive messages – freedom, entrepreneurship, and so forth. What it actually does, however, is advocate for the elite at the expense of everyone else – and it really doesn’t even propose, much less seriously push, anything that helps the everyman. The public seems to get that – maybe imperfectly, but they get it. In their mind, the GOP has become the party of the plutocrats – with an antiscientific and often wilfully blind crowd of Fox News viewers cobbled on. This is not an appetizing portrait. In fact arguably the mystery is not why the GOP doesn’t do better, but why it does as well as it does while acting so consistently to the detriment of most of its own voters.

So why don’t liberals clean up? Because they don’t look too great themselves. Substantively they haven’t delivered on their promises. Maybe that is, as Kuttner says, because of conservative obstruction to a greater or lesser degree. But the average voter doesn’t seem to care nearly as much about the why as about the what – and the what is a lack of major improvement. Worse still, many see them as just throwing tax dollars away on different interest groups – and when those groups are not them, it’s unfavorable. This is particularly bad when times are tight – people seem more willing to be generous with the poor when they are in good shape themselves, but when people are straining to make ends meet, it’s harder to favor payments to anyone else – particularly those who are perceived as working less hard (or not at all). Liberals also have the problem that they are identified with government, which people generally think doesn’t work. Ok, partly they think that because conservatives are doing their best to make sure it doesn’t work. But government is also pretty good at botching things up even when no one is deliberately throwing wrenches into the gears. Take Healthcare.gov. So liberals look to most of the public as maybe closer in heart to the middle class than conservatives, but ineffective, catering to the indolent with money the country doesn’t have, and not a very positive alternative in themselves.

The negative views of both sides are exacerbated by gridlock and polarization. Between the very deep divides that exist and the quirks of the political process, (gerrymandering etc) it is very difficult for either side to really do things. There have been major exceptions, true (eg the Bush tax cuts or Obamacare). Still, it’s so much easier to stop then to do that neither party can end up with much in the way of trophies. Even when something gets done at all, it’s complicated, messy, and usually unsatisfying in one way or another. There seems to be an absence of “grand triumphs” that anyone can trumpet. This leads to even greater disaffection and disappointment, as well as a political culture of persistently running on not being the other guy rather than having a positive message. With the possible exception of Obama in 2008, it’s rare that anyone wins for who they claim to be rather than who they aren’t. The last several *waves” have all been incarnations to one level or another of “throw da bums out”, with no real mandates for (or even really approval of) their replacements.

Maybe part of this is that when things are on a general downward slope, everyone is dissatisfied – the opposite facet of the rising tide lifts all boats trope. We’re currently coping with a whole series of trends – the soaring costs of health care and college, the hollowing out of certain sectors, the sluggish job situation, etc, etc – that have been building for years. Taken together, they create a generalized and quite justifiable angst in the electorate – especially given that most were raised in better living standards than even relatively good jobs can support now. That angst lies behind much of the Tea Party frustration (though whether that angst has been targeted in the right directions is another question entirely). On top of that, really turning things around is exceedingly difficult especially given a toxic political climate and often postrational debate environment, where actual facts matter less and less to a disturbingly high fraction of the politicians and the people as well. With a chronically disappointed electorate, elections seem to boil down to picking lesser of two evils in all but the most unusual cases.

The bottom line is that both parties have severe image problems – but that really isn’t the core of the problem. To a much greater degree, they have substance problems (maybe in the literal sense too for some members) underlying them. Both have to operate in a difficult environment against a backdrop of tremendous angst. And both have opportunities to change where they stand and how they see things going – but they aren’t likely to be able to really fix anything on their own either, so victories will remain fleeting and the battle will continue to be second worst until the game changes.

Silicon Valley, CA – Today, prominent Republican Jim Cunneen endorsed Congressman Mike Honda in California’s 17th district following Vanila Singh’s 3rd place finish in the June primary. Former Assemblymember Cunneen was Congressman Honda’s Republican opponent during the 2000 Congressional election. Cunneen is also a former President and CEO of the San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce, and has held executive positions at Applied Materials and Cisco Systems (both headquartered in CA-17).

“I am proud to support Congressman Honda this November,” said Cunneen. “I’ve admired Mike for as long as I’ve known him. In the Assembly, we worked together on technology and education issues. Most of all, Mike’s integrity and good character have served our region well. His hard work and seniority has consistently delivered for Silicon Valley, including his bipartisan work to secure funding for the BART extension that is delivering thousands of jobs. As a previous supporter of Republican Vanila Singh, who is no longer in the race, I ask that other Republicans join me and switch their support to Mike Honda, who will continue working hard to represent all of us in Silicon Valley.”

The latest public poll available in this race, commissioned by CBS and cited in Ro Khanna campaign memos, has Honda currently leading among registered Republican voters (19% to 18%). The poll also shows a huge lead for Congressman Honda in key demographic groups for the district, such as Moderates (44% to 26%) and Democrats (57% to 21%). Full poll results are available here.

Voters in California’s 17th Congressional District made it clear on June 3rd that they overwhelmingly support Congressman Mike Honda to any of his opponents by 20%, despite being outspent by Ro Khanna’s campaign by a more than 2 to 1 margin. The Honda campaign now has more resources than Khanna, and is in a good position to continue building upon this lead.

Deputy Assistant Secretary for International and Foreign Language Education at US Department of Education; White House Fellow 2011-2012; director of strategic planning for President Obama’s national security team; active duty Coast Guard officer

more important than the still good party support is his on-the-ground support; if polls speak to some political industry insiders, then he’s also +9% there

he doesn’t lie, whether you want to use experience reading news about him, his PolitiFact page, factual defense of the usual dumb accusations during campaigns, etc.

Long Beach Leader Seeks to Become First South Asian to Serve in CA Statehouse

WASHINGTON D.C. – The Asian American Action (AAA) Fund is pleased to announce the endorsement of Dr. Suja Lowenthal for California State Assembly.
Dr. Lowenthal, the first South Asian to serve on the Long Beach City Council, would be the first South Asian American elected to the California state legislature. She is running to represent the 70th Assembly District (Long Beach) in Los Angeles County. Dr. Lowenthal’s public service includes over 12 years of experience in elected office.

As a Councilmember, Dr. Lowenthal has authored legislation designating Cambodia Town in the City of Long Beach and has brought over 15 years of experience in the water industry to reform rate policies in Long Beach.

AAA-Fund Executive Director Gautam Dutta said, “We’re excited to endorse Dr. Suja Lowenthal, a proven leader who will not need any ‘on the job’ training. Her experience and expertise will make her a leader from day one in the legislature.”

After receiving the AAA-Fund’s endorsement, Dr. Lowenthal stated, “I am deeply honored to have earned the endorsement of the Asian American Action Fund. They join the California League of Conservation Voters, Long Beach’s Democratic clubs, educators, business leaders, hotel housekeepers and Senator Ricardo Lara in an ever-growing base of support for my candidacy.”

Washington, DC – DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz released the following statement in recognition of Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month:

“This May we celebrate Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month and honor the community’s valuable contributions to our nation. A thriving AAPI community is an integral part of our nation’s prosperity and the product of generations of struggles and sacrifices. Their successes are a testament to the enduring power of the American Dream.

“Under President Obama, Democrats have made progress on the priorities that AAPI communities share with so many American families. We have invested in education and cut taxes for middle-class families. The Affordable Care Act has increased access to quality, affordable health care, including preventive care with no co-pay and allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance plans. AAPI small business owners have been empowered by small business loans, tax cuts, and credits to provide health insurance for their employees. Democrats are also committed to enacting common sense reform that will fix our nation’s broken immigration system, facilitate family reunification, and provide a path to citizenship for those already here, including DREAMers.

“Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month is an opportunity to celebrate the diversity that makes our nation stronger, and to rededicate ourselves to the shared values that bring Americans together.”